Why does God Permit....

[Sapo]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

Fair enough. Surely, in that case, there is no point to the birth of children if they are unfortunetly killed soon after birth (or aborted, depending on your beliefs)? They have no chance to inflict suffering on others or to suffer; are they then unable to make a choice for or against salvation?

[/QUOTE]

This I can answer with a quote from someone whose opinion I trust:

[QUOTE=Sapo on post #54]
They will eat The Cookie in Life Eternal. And they need not have any sin. If they have none, they will have none to respond for. And before you say they are then getting a free pass and it is us getting shafted for not being that lucky to die without sin to respond for, that doesn’t mean they will have no challenge in front of God. They will have to face the pardon of all those who did commit sin (even agains them) and accept to share Salvation with them.
[/QUOTE]

That dude sounds like he knows what he is talking about.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I would imagine it would be different in the “actually having suffered” part. Would it be insufficient? That would, normally, depend on whether or not you accepted the implanted knowledge as being different from experienced knowledge, which of course we can’t know one way or the other. However, this is a special case; God’s omnipotent. So yes, God can do it without it being insufficient.

[/QUOTE]

Well, would you know the difference between having been in love and having a memory implanted of having been in love? Only the experience of being in love can let you know what being in love is.

God is omnipotent but not irrational, illogical or capricious.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Erm, the opposite of “all suffering” is “no suffering”. That there must be some suffering is just another argument.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is another argument and the one where I started. It was you who introduced “all suffering” and “no suffering”.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
The problem with some suffering is; well, how much? If we assume God exists, the correct answer would probably be “just enough to allow us to understand suffering, and no more”; since he’s benevolent, he’d let us experience the amount of suffering that’s appropriate, but not any added pointless suffering that won’t change our decision. Which is perfectly reasonable in and of itself; after all, all people are different, and so they’d probably need to know suffering to different amounts. That would tend to imply, however, strange similarities for suffering across cultures in examples of genocide.

[/QUOTE]

Too many assumptions there. We do not know the scale of suffering. Who says it goes linearly from pinprick to genocide? There might be sufferings that are orders of magnitude higher than genocide that would shred a soul apart. There might be different types of suffering that don’t measure to each other. People have survived genocides and lived not just to tell the tale but to flourish. Some people have killed themselves over menial things. How much is too much, how much is enough?

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Alternatively, it could be that God does not actually control the amount of suffering; he gives us the capacity to understand it, but (since free will is his top priority) he doesn’t dole it out; he lets us do that. Unfortunetly that would mean that some people get much more suffering than they need, which is obviously bad, but also that some people get less - which on the face of it is pretty good for them, but it means they don’t know suffering enough to make the decision of salvation.

[/QUOTE]

Yes to your premise, no to your conclusion (for the reasons explained just above)

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
And i’m sure there are such people. I’m merely pointing out that there are other people - people who cause suffering, but think that they are in the right - who won’t learn about suffering. They are incapable of it. I don’t think i’m able to convince you that such people exist, however, so I think this in particular is going to be a dead-end argument on both sides.

[/QUOTE]

I do believe that such people exist. It is just that, at the time of judgement, whatever was clouding their judgement will be cleared and they will be able to examine their life with full knowledge and understanding. And if they understood the suffering but just didn’t think of it as a negative because they thought they were serving a greater good, then there was no sin.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Good point, actually. I could have had the choice, but then had my memory wiped of it. Wouldn’t that mean, though, that I am not knowledgeable of the choices presented to me?

[/QUOTE]

Not at the present time. At Judgement, you will be.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
And on top of that, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe that God exists; I don’t feel him nor see him in the world. Clearly, if God does exist, I am not knowledgable of the choice to follow him.

[/QUOTE]

Again, at Judgement you will know, you will see and you will feel.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I’d say it would, to some extent, in that it would cause them to have different reactions to people and things. But there’s a difference between being blind and not being empathic; blindness stops you from seeing, from taking in information of a certain kind. Not being empathic is a function of the self, a part of what you’d call “me”. If I take a calculator and let it work by voice-recognition, it’s still a calculator. But if I add in a letter-recognising function and some information, it’s now a calculator and a dictionary.

[/QUOTE]

Empathy is another input, an ability to perceive. But let’s not let that stop us. Differenty psychopathies exist that are not perceptual. Still, give or take abilities, the person remains.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
That’s true. But plenty of people in history have done something bad for the greater good - and often our idea of good is very different from theirs (And there’s still the people who cause suffering but think it’s ok anyway).

[/QUOTE]

Sin requires the intention to sin. A misguided bad deed is the easiest to excuse.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
This is something I don’t think i’ll ever understand. If you find that there’s something that doesn’t make sense about your god, why do theists still believe?

[/QUOTE]

It is not that it doesn’t make sense. It is just that we cannot understand it. Still, when you fall in love, there can be things about your SO that don’t make sense to you but you are still in love.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
But you’re just taking that on faith. It seems like, according to your beliefs, that Hitler will get it much easier than you or me. But you have faith in another belief that means this isn’t so. Faith I get, but faith that your other faith is wrong?

[/QUOTE]

I simply didn’t get that. At all. So I will just repost what you were responding to:

I don’t see that he is getting an easier path to Salvation. As I said, a retrospective view of a life with a heightened perception could be a terrible burden to bear. That is one of my starting points. That all people have the same potential for Salvation. Otherwise we would all be crying foul at the injustice of not having died before birth so we would have no sins to account for.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Can you really extricate pain from tactile sensation? From self-perception? Yes, God can. An omnipotent being is perfectly capable of removing the pain but still allowing us to feel the sensation of being tackled.

[/QUOTE]

At what point does the perception of pressure becomes painful? For everyone?

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
You’re quite correct; God could be protecting us from some amount of pain that we would normally experience. But we do still feel pain. If someone hits me with a baseball bat and God comes along and switches it for a cosh; well, that’s nice of him, but i’m still getting hit. “no more than we can handle” isn’t good enough for a benevolent being; it really should be none.

[/QUOTE]

That’s your standard. But again, in order for me to be free to inflict suffering on you, you must be able to suffer.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
That would be a “yes”, then, I think. There is no need for experience on Earth, either. Yet, we choose to experience things. If that choice is taken away from us by God - if, in fact, we are locked in a single moment of eternal bliss - that’s nice, but kinda takes away from the whole free will business. And if we’re just going to be locked up there anyway, what’s the point of having people pick between that and non-salvation (whatever you believe that to entail)?

[/QUOTE]

When you are omniscient, you don’t change your mind. There is nothing else to consider. Knowledge is static. Your decisions are, therefore, final. You are not artificially locked nor restrained. You are Eternal. There is no time.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Hey, you might kill a Doper I like! Besides, i’m enjoying this argument. I’d hate for it to be cut short by you being arrested.

[/QUOTE]

A very charitable feeling… …for an atheist, that is

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Ok, let me sort this out. We need to be able to cause suffering to be moral (and choose not to); in order to cause suffering, we need to know it, and thus we are put in a position where we can know it. Is that correct?

[/QUOTE]

We are put in a position where we can choose between causing suffering or not. You insist on putting the stress on the “educational” part of suffering. I insist on putting it on the choice part.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
If so, what’s the difference between that and me saying that we need to be able to cause bleenwort to be moral; in order to cause bleenwort, we need to know it, and we should be in a position where we can know it. Why are we not in a position to know bleenwort?

We don’t have bleenwort, either. And plenty of people are unable to cause (or experience) suffering, or to understand it. These people, therefore, cannot be free, capitalisation or otherwise.

[/QUOTE]

Morality is the choice between good or evil. Suffering is a consequence of evil. If bleenwort is a consequence of evil, let’s discuss it. Otherwise, bleenwortality is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Choosing strawberry is not a moral choice. Choosing to live is. But yes, you’re right, I don’t know whether I did or not. I wonder what happens to those who choose otherwise?
[/QUOTE]

I know strawberry is not a moral choice. All I am saying is that you cannot choose an option that is not made available to you.

And wonder we must until all is revealed.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=Sapo]
This I can answer with a quote from someone whose opinion I trust:
That dude sounds like he knows what he is talking about.
[/quote]
I’m afraid I don’t get it. If it’s about being able to make a choice to sin, and we die before we are able to make that choice (or are mentally disabled to the point where we can’t) - why did we exist?

Well, would you know the difference between having been in love and having a memory implanted of having been in love? Only the experience of being in love can let you know what being in love is.

God is omnipotent but not irrational, illogical or capricious.

I’m not saying we wouldn’t know the difference, i’m saying there would be no difference. I’m not saying God would be horribly cruel to just impart knowledge of love without letting us experience it ourselves, i’m saying that as an omnipotent being God can give us the knowledge equal to actual experience. There would be no difference, other than the means by which they were got - there being no extra quality to them other than that.

Yes, it is another argument and the one where I started. It was you who introduced “all suffering” and “no suffering”.

True. I’m sorry I implied they were the only two options, then.

Too many assumptions there. We do not know the scale of suffering. Who says it goes linearly from pinprick to genocide? There might be sufferings that are orders of magnitude higher than genocide that would shred a soul apart. There might be different types of suffering that don’t measure to each other. People have survived genocides and lived not just to tell the tale but to flourish. Some people have killed themselves over menial things. How much is too much, how much is enough?

It differs from person to person, of course. And only gods know how much is too much (well, we can know too if someone flips out, but that’s a bit extreme). My point was that inevitably under this system some people wouldn’t learn enough about suffering, or would learn too much. Now that I get your focus on choice, I suppose I can ask; is there such a thing as too much choice to cause suffering (too little I got into earlier)?

I do believe that such people exist. It is just that, at the time of judgement, whatever was clouding their judgement will be cleared and they will be able to examine their life with full knowledge and understanding. And if they understood the suffering but just didn’t think of it as a negative because they thought they were serving a greater good, then there was no sin.

But these people wouldn’t have a choice in life between causing suffering and not. If they can’t recognise it, how can they choose to do it? And since they have no choice after salvation, it seems like the only chance they’d have to make any choices is after death but before salvation. I don’t know how long that’s supposed to be, or if we’re able to make choices in it, but i’m pretty sure we can’t choose to cause suffering during that time.

Not at the present time. At Judgement, you will be.

Again, at Judgement you will know, you will see and you will feel.

But that’s after my life. You said the mortal life was about choices - those are two choices I don’t know about during my mortality.

Empathy is another input, an ability to perceive. But let’s not let that stop us. Differenty psychopathies exist that are not perceptual. Still, give or take abilities, the person remains.

Empathy isn’t just the ability to percieve. It’s feeling it as well. As an empathic person, you don’t just see suffering and say “Hey, there’s some suffering. I recognise that”. You feel bad too. It’s the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. Pretty different from just another input.

Sin requires the intention to sin. A misguided bad deed is the easiest to excuse.

I feel there’s a difference here between what i’d call misguided (“whoops, everything’s gone a bit wrong”) and uncaring (“I’d like money, so i’ll take it from this guy by pulling a gun on him”). A robber may feel that their theft is ok even though it causes suffering. And disturbingly; who is to say he’s wrong? How do we know his view of things isn’t better than ours?

It is not that it doesn’t make sense. It is just that we cannot understand it. Still, when you fall in love, there can be things about your SO that don’t make sense to you but you are still in love.

Something of a different thing. Faith can be “Hmm. I’m not quite sure how this works, but i’ll believe in it anyway” kind of thing, and I get that, that’s fine. It’s when it crosses into “Hmm, this seems to mean my faith isn’t actually possible, but i’ll believe in it anyway” where it tends to get strange for me.

The problem with bringing up the “we can’t understand it” idea is that, well, how do we know what we do understand? If there’s stuff we don’t know, how can we be certain that the things we do know are actually the case?

I simply didn’t get that. At all. So I will just repost what you were responding to:

I don’t see that he is getting an easier path to Salvation. As I said, a retrospective view of a life with a heightened perception could be a terrible burden to bear. That is one of my starting points. That all people have the same potential for Salvation. Otherwise we would all be crying foul at the injustice of not having died before birth so we would have no sins to account for.

Sorry, that was pretty unclear, wasn’t it?

All I meant was that it seemed like one of your beliefs was that all humans have the same chance of getting salvation. But it also seemed like Hitler (or people who committed crimes but don’t believe they did) would get salvation easier than we conscience-having people. So it looked like one of your beliefs was in conflict with another.

At what point does the perception of pressure becomes painful? For everyone?

I don’t know. Alas, if only the being in charge was able to know this information, for everyone. Some sort of…all-knowing being. That’d work.

That’s your standard. But again, in order for me to be free to inflict suffering on you, you must be able to suffer.

But we’re still talking about a football game, here. Why not have special rules for games; no one gets hurt. All the rest of the time, suffering happens as normal. That seems like a nice thing to do, and it doesn’t stop you from choosing to inflict pain on me.

When you are omniscient, you don’t change your mind. There is nothing else to consider. Knowledge is static. Your decisions are, therefore, final. You are not artificially locked nor restrained. You are Eternal. There is no time.

We get to be omniscient when we die?

I certainly am artificially locked. Do I have the choice to not be? I may not be able or choose to make it, but do I have that choice? Is it an option that’s open to me?

A very charitable feeling… …for an atheist, that is

Hey, we have hearts, too. I keep mine in this matchbox here.

We are put in a position where we can choose between causing suffering or not. You insist on putting the stress on the “educational” part of suffering. I insist on putting it on the choice part.

Alright.

Morality is the choice between good or evil. Suffering is a consequence of evil. If bleenwort is a consequence of evil, let’s discuss it. Otherwise, bleenwortality is irrelevant.

It is certainly a facet of morality. But, being creatures without bleenwort, we cannot recognise it.

Seriously though, how do we know that there is not a yet unknown area of morality that we don’t understand?

I know strawberry is not a moral choice. All I am saying is that you cannot choose an option that is not made available to you.

That’s my point, too. How do we know the options we have avaliable are the only options? What if there’s something we don’t understand about morality that’s actually important? By definition, we can’t know. So it seems silly to say that we have all the options morality-wise open to us.

And wonder we must until all is revealed.

Or until we stop wondering, of course. Bit anticlimactic, the atheist view!

[Sapo]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I’m afraid I don’t get it. If it’s about being able to make a choice to sin, and we die before we are able to make that choice (or are mentally disabled to the point where we can’t) - why did we exist?

[/QUOTE]

I could take the easy way out and say that we don’t know that they have a soul (!). Or that those souls get a second chance. I won’t, though. I will just ponder that maybe they still have the choice to judge their oppressors (which brings suffering on God) and not forgive their sins. In the end, it is all a matter of choosing Salvation vs Damnation. They have their particular circumstances that lead to their particular challenge.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

I’m not saying we wouldn’t know the difference, i’m saying there would be no difference. I’m not saying God would be horribly cruel to just impart knowledge of love without letting us experience it ourselves, i’m saying that as an omnipotent being God can give us the knowledge equal to actual experience. There would be no difference, other than the means by which they were got - there being no extra quality to them other than that.

[/QUOTE]

Let me put it this way. If you remember hitting your knee 10 years ago and it hurting like all-get-out, would it make a difference to you whether it really happened or it was magically implanted in your brain?. Wouldn’t you still cringe at the thought and make an effort to plan your route around that devilish little coffee table?

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

It differs from person to person, of course. And only gods know how much is too much (well, we can know too if someone flips out, but that’s a bit extreme). My point was that inevitably under this system some people wouldn’t learn enough about suffering, or would learn too much. Now that I get your focus on choice, I suppose I can ask; is there such a thing as too much choice to cause suffering (too little I got into earlier)?

[/QUOTE]

I, er, (!). No, I don’t think there is such thing as too much freedom to choose. Call them additional chances to get it right. Or to get it wrong. In the end, there is only one choice that matters: Salvation vs Damnation. Different people need different levels of experience to face that choice. Let me presume that our benevolent God knows how much each person needs and that is how He decides to dole them out.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

But these people wouldn’t have a choice in life between causing suffering and not. If they can’t recognise it, how can they choose to do it? And since they have no choice after salvation, it seems like the only chance they’d have to make any choices is after death but before salvation. I don’t know how long that’s supposed to be, or if we’re able to make choices in it, but i’m pretty sure we can’t choose to cause suffering during that time.

[/QUOTE]

Again, I reserve the right to play the cop out card of “maybe they don’t have souls”. But no. Again (again), I just think that at Judgement, they will have the opportunity to review their lives with full understanding of the suffering they caused. The suffering WAS caused and their inability to understand it is gone.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

But that’s after my life. You said the mortal life was about choices - those are two choices I don’t know about during my mortality.

[/QUOTE]

For one, the “evidence” for God, the universe, is there. You did have the choice. That your ability to see it was veiled in life is solved in Judgement.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

I feel there’s a difference here between what i’d call misguided (“whoops, everything’s gone a bit wrong”) and uncaring (“I’d like money, so i’ll take it from this guy by pulling a gun on him”). A robber may feel that their theft is ok even though it causes suffering. And disturbingly; who is to say he’s wrong? How do we know his view of things isn’t better than ours?

[/QUOTE]

I meant misguided (“whoops, I thought belting my kid every day built character and was going to make him a better person”). Whatever it is that makes your robber feel his theft is ok is a veil on his eyes. At Judgement, that veil will be lifted and they will review it with that enhanced perception.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

Something of a different thing. Faith can be “Hmm. I’m not quite sure how this works, but i’ll believe in it anyway” kind of thing, and I get that, that’s fine. It’s when it crosses into “Hmm, this seems to mean my faith isn’t actually possible, but i’ll believe in it anyway” where it tends to get strange for me.

The problem with bringing up the “we can’t understand it” idea is that, well, how do we know what we do understand? If there’s stuff we don’t know, how can we be certain that the things we do know are actually the case?

[/QUOTE]

I don’t think anyone thinks “hey, my faith is all bullsh but i am going to stick with it”. It would take positive evidence on the invalidity of your God for this to happen. Since when it comes to solid evidence of gods it is all no evidence for nor against, it would be extremely hard that someone is convinced that his God is not real and then still insists in believing.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

All I meant was that it seemed like one of your beliefs was that all humans have the same chance of getting salvation. But it also seemed like Hitler (or people who committed crimes but don’t believe they did) would get salvation easier than we conscience-having people. So it looked like one of your beliefs was in conflict with another.

[/QUOTE]

I don’t think either is easier. Each has its challenges. Again, for this to be fair (as you would expect from a benevolent God), all would have to be equal. If we perceive some are “more equal than others” then we must presume fault on our perception.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

I don’t know. Alas, if only the being in charge was able to know this information, for everyone. Some sort of…all-knowing being. That’d work.

[/QUOTE]

Maybe it is just mu. Maybe the point where it stops being useful information is past the point where it becomes painful and we must, therefore, be subject to pain in order not to lose that info.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

But we’re still talking about a football game, here. Why not have special rules for games; no one gets hurt. All the rest of the time, suffering happens as normal. That seems like a nice thing to do, and it doesn’t stop you from choosing to inflict pain on me.

[/QUOTE]

You are asking for a capricious God. God must be logical and coherent.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

We get to be omniscient when we die?

[/QUOTE]

I believe so. At least to the point where you can make informed moral choices.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

I certainly am artificially locked. Do I have the choice to not be? I may not be able or choose to make it, but do I have that choice? Is it an option that’s open to me?

[/QUOTE]

You do have the choice to remain outside of Salvation.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
…how do we know that there is not a yet unknown area of morality that we don’t understand?

[/QUOTE]

I don’t. Maybe there is.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

That’s my point, too. How do we know the options we have avaliable are the only options? What if there’s something we don’t understand about morality that’s actually important? By definition, we can’t know. So it seems silly to say that we have all the options morality-wise open to us.

[/QUOTE]

You can choose among all the options that are available to you. There might be options not available to us or just not available to you. Morality is about making choices and you can only choose the options presented to you. The non-options are well, not an option.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

Or until we stop wondering, of course. Bit anticlimactic, the atheist view!
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: no wonder you guys don’t have a book.

[kanicbird]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

We get to be omniscient when we die?
[/quote]

@Sapo

I believe so. At least to the point where you can make informed moral choices

My understanding about this is when Satan is removed from interfering with our choices what we should do will become crystal clear. This happens 2 times, the first is when Satan is bound for 1000 years, but this would require you living past the tribulation. The second is after Satan is thrown in the lake of fire. For those who died before the 1000 year period they will miss that and be resurrected after Satan is thrown in the lake of fire.

[Sapo]

Satan is fine for scaring the ignorant and swearing at stupid drivers. I believe that for a serious cosmology with an omnimax god, Satan is kind of squeezed out. At least on mine, that is. I would be more than willing to consider the existence of a Satan inside the cosmology I have been presenting if you are willing to accept the basic premises I personally believe. Your thread or mine?

[BrandonR]

This argument is so much easier from an atheist’s point of view… The simple fact that there is no God makes perfect sense and it’s really beyond my comprehension how Christians can sit there everyday and delude themselves into believing there being a purpose for everything.

[Sapo]

Revenant, where did yuo go?

[kanicbird]

[QUOTE=Sapo]
believe that for a serious cosmology with an omnimax god, Satan is kind of squeezed out
[/QUOTE]

I guess it comes down to how you define omnimax, which is a new term for me, IIRC I only heard it in this thread. For Christian theology scripture speaks louder then mans ‘wisdom’.

[Sapo]

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
I guess it comes down to how you define omnimax, which is a new term for me, IIRC I only heard it in this thread. For Christian theology scripture speaks louder then mans ‘wisdom’.
[/QUOTE]

I learned omnimax here in the SDMB myself. It is shorthand for omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, I believe (at least that’s how I have been using it).

And I don’t mean to go over the Bible. I am a disenfranchised Catholic myself. I just see the whole Lake of Fire et al as poetic images more than hard data. Jesus himself never bothered to talk about angels and purgatory and many headed beasts. He was all about love and forgiveness and living a dedicated life. About a final judgement that separated the wheat from the chaff, no multi-tiered hierarchies, no horned demons, no fancy imagery. All that came later.

[kanicbird]

[QUOTE=Sapo]
I learned omnimax here in the SDMB myself. It is shorthand for omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, I believe (at least that’s how I have been using it).
[/QUOTE]

This triad of omni-x has been logically analyzed, Many people have concluded that it is not possible for a god to be all 3 and allow suffering. I content that this concept is of what we as humans imagine a ‘god’ would be like, but in scripture this is not the case:

[QUOTE=Luke8]
43 And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, who had spent all her living upon physicians, and could not be healed of any,

44 came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately the issue of her blood stanched.

45 And Jesus said, Who is it that touched me? And when all denied, Peter said, and they that were with him, Master, the multitudes press thee and crush thee.

46 But Jesus said, Some one did touch me; for I perceived that power had gone forth from me.

47 And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people for what cause she touched him, and how she was healed immediately.

48 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.
[/QUOTE]

This is a time where Jesus appears not to be omniscient.

[kanicbird]

Hit reply too soon.

By going with the omni-x view of God, you are put into a position to defend a ‘god’ that is not supported in scripture or by man’s logic.

[Sapo]

Was Jesus really needing to know or was he just giving the “perp” a chance to come forward? Was Jesus (the man in the flesh, the incarnation of The Son) the fullness of God?

At any rate, yes, you are right. I do believe in a truly omnimax god much bigger that what scripture explicitly presents to us. I have no problem with that as Scripture was written by men for men in a less sophisticated time.

As for man’s logic, I would say not supported by man’s expectations more than logic. I do not know if you had been following my exchange with Revenant but I have been defending the position that I do not believe our experience of suffering is inconsistent with a benevolent God. I would rather not reenact the whole thing but feels free to either review it and ask for particulars or start shooting your personal doubts.

[kanicbird]

Sapo I generally agree with much of your points, like mortal life is insignificant next to eternal life.

[QUOTE=Sapo]
Was Jesus really needing to know or was he just giving the “perp” a chance to come forward?
[/QUOTE]

There are other times Jesus seemed not to know certain things, like ‘Father why have you forsaken Me’ as he was on the cross.

Was Jesus (the man in the flesh, the incarnation of The Son) the fullness of God?

If so how does that change the tri-omni-x? It does seem like Jesus as man did have some ‘limitations’, which we typically don’t associate with a ‘god’.

I do believe in a truly omnimax god much bigger that what scripture explicitly presents to us. I have no problem with that as Scripture was written by men for men in a less sophisticated time.

So can I take this as the scripture writers must tone down the tri-omni-x aspects of God so that people will believe it?

One point I want to go into a bit further, is what I take as a unbelief of Satan. First your post:

Secondly, if I ask you if you want vanilla or chocolate, you can’t choose strawberry. There are limits to human freedom.

This seems to be a reference, intentionally or not, to light and dark, good and evil with no other option. You seem to agree that one can choose to serve God or not, just a disagreement of who you serve if you choose not to serve God.

Who did Jesus meet in the desert? Who was Jesus talking about when He said the Evil One controls the whole world? Who did Jesus command to get behind Him when He said Satan get behind Me?

[Sapo]

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

There are other times Jesus seemed not to know certain things, like ‘Father why have you forsaken Me’ as he was on the cross.

If so how does that change the tri-omni-x? It does seem like Jesus as man did have some ‘limitations’, which we typically don’t associate with a ‘god’.

[/QUOTE]

Actually, the passage you quote is the strongest support of Jesus (the human) not being the totality of the Son of God (the second person of God triune). Jesus could have been an avatar or a posessed or inspired human. This would explain this quote. I am just taking stabs here but I know this passage has been the subject of long debate. God the Son would not have said this.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

So can I take this as the scripture writers must tone down the tri-omni-x aspects of God so that people will believe it?

[/QUOTE]

More like the writers themselves were not sophisticated enough to handle the concept of an omnimax God. Superhuman powers were enough on those times to carry the necessary awe. Some advancement had been made from the Olympian gods but still a long way from a contemplation of infinity and eternity.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

One point I want to go into a bit further, is what I take as a unbelief of Satan. First your post:

This seems to be a reference, intentionally or not, to light and dark, good and evil with no other option. You seem to agree that one can choose to serve God or not, just a disagreement of who you serve if you choose not to serve God.

[/QUOTE]

That is not exactly where I was going with that but I do, indeed, believe that our ultimate moral freedom is a binary decision. This is how Jesus always talks about it. Everything else has been added later.

If you choose not to serve God, you choose nothing. You remain alone marginalized from God’s salvation by your own choice. Otherwise it becomes a Blue Team vs Red Team and either choice results in an eternity of communion with your team of choice. They become indifferent.

Either that or then you have a benevolent God creating punishment for those who do not accept his Salvation. God cannot be the source of evil. All evil comes from humanity and all love comes from God. Humans are only free to create evil, when we love, it is God’s love manifest through us.

A punishing Hell cannot be a product of a loving God. Damnation is an absence of Salvation just as darkness is an absence of light and not a separate competing phenomenom.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

Who did Jesus meet in the desert? Who was Jesus talking about when He said the Evil One controls the whole world? Who did Jesus command to get behind Him when He said Satan get behind Me?
[/QUOTE]

Evil in all cases. Not a person, evil itself. The alternative to embracing God’s love. The message is tailored to the Jews of the time whose cosmology includes angels and demons, a mutable talking God and for whom eternity is a countable infinity.

Who is this Satan? Who created him? Why is he evil? What gives him his power?

A created evil Satan cannot be the work of a loving God.

A non-created Satan means an equal to God.

A created Satan who was free to turn evil makes him human. Making him angelic (superhuman) is what to me is an unnecessary level of complexity. If God created us in his image (eternal and moral, according to my beliefs) what need is there for additional levels. If our morality is, in the end, binary, all levels of creation are ultimately equivalent and this Satan is just one more moral creature.

A personal Satan is just a historical product, IMO

[Revenant_Threshold]

Sorry, Sapo. I had some important coursework to do, and I didn’t want to fill my head up with religious debate. Better a focused answer than a flippant rushed one.
[QUOTE=Sapo]
I could take the easy way out and say that we don’t know that they have a soul (!). Or that those souls get a second chance. I won’t, though. I will just ponder that maybe they still have the choice to judge their oppressors (which brings suffering on God) and not forgive their sins. In the end, it is all a matter of choosing Salvation vs Damnation. They have their particular circumstances that lead to their particular challenge.
[/quote]
Judging other people brings suffering to God? I had heard the “Only God may judge” thing, but not this form of it.

Anyway, the problem remains that newborns aren’t really able to judge anyone. I can’t picture a newborn thinking “Ah, yes, that person has wronged me. Shame upon them” or anything along those lines.

I like the idea of them not having souls, though (I know, you’re not arguing that, don’t worry). It seems like a good way to get around religious objections to stem cell research; if fetuses are going to have their cells harvested and die anyway, they don’t have souls, and it’s ok. Not that I think that’ll convince anyone.

Let me put it this way. If you remember hitting your knee 10 years ago and it hurting like all-get-out, would it make a difference to you whether it really happened or it was magically implanted in your brain?. Wouldn’t you still cringe at the thought and make an effort to plan your route around that devilish little coffee table?

I couldn’t honestly say. It might be one way or the other. But we’re led back to the problem that God is omnipotent, and so could choose to do it either way, whichever’s better for him.

I, er, (!). No, I don’t think there is such thing as too much freedom to choose. Call them additional chances to get it right. Or to get it wrong. In the end, there is only one choice that matters: Salvation vs Damnation. Different people need different levels of experience to face that choice. Let me presume that our benevolent God knows how much each person needs and that is how He decides to dole them out.

Ah, but we have free will, don’t we? God can’t (well, he can, he just chooses not to) dole out the exact amount of experience we need, because he doesn’t control people. Because of that factor, some people will get more experience than they need, and some less.

Again, I reserve the right to play the cop out card of “maybe they don’t have souls”. But no. Again (again), I just think that at Judgement, they will have the opportunity to review their lives with full understanding of the suffering they caused. The suffering WAS caused and their inability to understand it is gone.

That certainly does solve the problem of mentally disabled people. Not newborns killed after birth, though, who have no choices to review.

Just out of interest; do you think it’s possible that someone could cause no intentional suffering in their life? Any suffering that is caused by them is accidental? The choice would still be there, so it doesn’t stop your argument. I’m just wondering.

For one, the “evidence” for God, the universe, is there. You did have the choice. That your ability to see it was veiled in life is solved in Judgement.

I don’t have a choice if I can’t see the choice. If someone offers me a choice between a red envelope and blue one, and hands me just the red one, how can I pick blue? It might be invisible, or a metaphysical enevelope. But I cannot choose it.

Anyway, that the evidence is veiled in life is fundamental to my character. As an athiest, I don’t feel bad about blaspheming, abortion, and so on. After death I may find that actually these things are bad, and that i’ve unintentionally caused suffering - but it’s still unintentional. I didn’t mean to do it. I cannot be blamed for my actions when I was not in full posession of the facts. So if I stand before God after death and find actually all that blaspheming hurt him - well, I’d apologise, but I wouldn’t feel particularly at fault.

I meant misguided (“whoops, I thought belting my kid every day built character and was going to make him a better person”). Whatever it is that makes your robber feel his theft is ok is a veil on his eyes. At Judgement, that veil will be lifted and they will review it with that enhanced perception.

Well, like before, why is he to blame for his veiled perception? That person and the person standing before God are two similar but different people. Why should, and would, he feel guilty for something that wasn’t his fault?

I don’t think anyone thinks “hey, my faith is all bullsh but i am going to stick with it”. It would take positive evidence on the invalidity of your God for this to happen. Since when it comes to solid evidence of gods it is all no evidence for nor against, it would be extremely hard that someone is convinced that his God is not real and then still insists in believing.

It’s not just solid evidence, though. People often believe in God because of their subjective experiences, like a sense that he exists. My point was more that I get faith when people say “There’s evidence that I am wrong, but there’s evidence i’m right, so i’m happy to believe”, but not when it gets to “There’s evidence that i’m right, but it appears my god is a logical impossibility; I believe anyway”.

I don’t think either is easier. Each has its challenges. Again, for this to be fair (as you would expect from a benevolent God), all would have to be equal. If we perceive some are “more equal than others” then we must presume fault on our perception.

Or that there is a flaw in the reasoning, and your thoughts on God’s actions are incorrect. That is an option also.

I think i’ve said this before, but the problem with saying “we aren’t able to accurately understand God” is that we might actually be wrong about the things we do know. You’d have to work with a certain level of scepticism about even the things that seem obvious to you.

Maybe it is just mu. Maybe the point where it stops being useful information is past the point where it becomes painful and we must, therefore, be subject to pain in order not to lose that info.

But that would be extending a limit onto God, in that he is unable to keep that info in our heads without subjecting us to pain.

You are asking for a capricious God. God must be logical and coherent.

How is that capricious? God doesn’t want us to suffer. He removes suffering where it is pointless. That seems logical and coherent to me.

I believe so. At least to the point where you can make informed moral choices.

Not something that can be known one way or the other, really, so i’ll not argue on this one.

You do have the choice to remain outside of Salvation.

After I choose it, I do? I’m not talking about the choice itself. I mean that after the choice, do I get to change my mind?

I get that you’re saying we are timeless beings, and as such would not change our minds from the instant of that decision. But is that choice *avaliable * to us, even if we will not take it?

You can choose among all the options that are available to you. There might be options not available to us or just not available to you. Morality is about making choices and you can only choose the options presented to you. The non-options are well, not an option.

I agree.

:rolleyes: no wonder you guys don’t have a book.

I imagine it would be pretty short, anyway.

[Sapo]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Sorry, Sapo. I had some important coursework to do, and I didn’t want to fill my head up with religious debate. Better a focused answer than a flippant rushed one.
[/QUOTE]

coursework schmoursework
that too is passing. Salvation is eternal.

Allow me for a minute to cut the sequence of our exchange to clarify a couple of key points that, although I have made several times, I feel are getting lost in the shuffle. Don’t take this as me weaseling out of any of your questions. Feel free to restate any of them if you think they are not getting addressed by my recap.
Our Souls are mature, conscious, enlightened and fully moral, no matter what our mortal life was like. The soul of a crack fetus and a centenary Dalai Lama are both equal in their moral capacity. They have very different mortal experiences which colour their experience of Judgement and that provide different challenges to accepting God’s Salvation but neither is better than the other nor has a better “chance” at Salvation as Salvation is a simple moral choice.

Pain is not Suffering. Pain is just a physical sensation not different from heat, sweetness, colour, thirst, fullness or sound.

Suffering stems from our unacceptance of our powerlesness and our distrust on God’s omnipotence and benevolence. Suffering is a question, a doubt, a disbelief. It is not the physical discomfort but wondering “Why is this happening to me?”, “Why can’t I stop it?”.

Evil is just an absence of Good, not a separate phenomenom. Everything good comes from God. Everything evil comes from man and stems from our God-given freedom to reject God’s gifts. That freedom is what makes us moral, what makes us human. Evil exists only inside our hearts. We cannot place evil on others.

God doesn’t judge, doesn’t punish. God is incapable of evil and of creating suffering. Our Judgement is a moment/eternity of full awareness of God, creation and ourselves. In that awareness we must choose to accept God’s love and embrace it. We suffer as a consequence of our unwillingness to accept God’s all-forgiving, all-encompassing love.

I just went through your last post and I consider that all the answers you asked are somehow included in this recap but I expect they won’t be as evident to you as they are to me. Feel free to re-ask.

[kanicbird]

[QUOTE=Sapo]
Actually, the passage you quote is the strongest support of Jesus (the human) not being the totality of the Son of God (the second person of God triune). Jesus could have been an avatar or a posessed or inspired human. This would explain this quote. I am just taking stabs here but I know this passage has been the subject of long debate. God the Son would not have said this.
[/QUOTE]

How do you take Jesus the man? And how do you take the Son of God?

My own take on it is that God (in 3 persons) exists in multi dimensions, more then our 3 plus time, in order to exist as man, Jesus had to convert to our 3+t, and as such was bound by such limitations. This also is how I understand the symbolism in Revelation. The angel of Christ (IMHO) created a symbolic representation of St. John that a 3+t dimensional person can understand, but really applies to a 3+ dimensional reality.

More like the writers themselves were not sophisticated enough to handle the concept of an omnimax God.

Interesting, I have always though of a ‘god’ who can snap their fingers and create a universe a pretty basic concept, but perhaps not, maybe some moderation was needed, that even a ‘god’ must jump through some hoops to do anything.

That is not exactly where I was going with that but I do, indeed, believe that our ultimate moral freedom is a binary decision. This is how Jesus always talks about it. Everything else has been added later.

Not that I know of, the last book, Revelation is exactly about a binary decision for those alive, to accept the mark of God or to accept the mark of the beast. Fence sitters seem to be totally SOL. People who don’t live through this time seem to have their binary decision made via their lives, God just interprets it - in the book of life or not = life with God or not. Now if you want to go into the issue of the RC teaching of purgatory I suggest you prove it scripturally first.

My own view is that the RC Church has failed by imposing themselves between the personal relationship one can have with God.

If you choose not to serve God, you choose nothing. You remain alone marginalized from God’s salvation by your own choice

You have posted that such a state is one which one is trying to flee from that which one can not flee (and you invoked mama’s cookie jar). Which is a valid interpretation of Hell. but who is to say you will be alone there. There certainally seem to be other candidates.

Either that or then you have a benevolent God creating punishment for those who do not accept his Salvation. God cannot be the source of evil. All evil comes from humanity and all love comes from God. Humans are only free to create evil, when we love, it is God’s love manifest through us.

I can understand the concept that God = Good, God created man, man capable of good or evil. By why do you limit evil to man? Why can’t we have God = Good, God created angels, angels capable of good or evil?

Either that or then you have a benevolent God creating punishment for those who do not accept his Salvation. God cannot be the source of evil. All evil comes from humanity and all love comes from God.

My view is that man has already fallen, we by ourselves already deserve to be eternally separation from God, salvation through Jesus is a bonus that we don’t deserve.

Humans are only free to create evil,

Where did you get the ‘only’ part from, is there any scriptural basis?

Evil in all cases. Not a person, evil itself. The alternative to embracing God’s love. The message is tailored to the Jews of the time whose cosmology includes angels and demons, a mutable talking God and for whom eternity is a countable infinity.

My understanding is that Jesus’s casting out demons was sort of new, not something that was ‘in vogue’ at his time, I would like to know more if it was.

Who is this Satan? Who created him? Why is he evil? What gives him his power?

Satan goes by many names. He seems to have some ‘right’ to the interest of man as I quoted above. If we accept that Satan = Lucifer = fallen angel the answer would be God and would explain Satan’s power. And by your own reasoning God can create a being that can chose evil. If we take God as truly -snap-thy-fingers-and-it-happens, tri-omni-x then Satan is harder to believe, but scripture does not support such a God.

A created Satan who was free to turn evil makes him human. Making him angelic (superhuman) is what to me is an unnecessary level of complexity. If God created us in his image (eternal and moral, according to my beliefs) what need is there for additional levels. If our morality is, in the end, binary, all levels of creation are ultimately equivalent and this Satan is just one more moral creature.

What about angels, who man was made lower then, and animals which man was made higher then, do you believe in these 2?

[Sapo]

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
How do you take Jesus the man? And how do you take the Son of God?

My own take on it is that God (in 3 persons) exists in multi dimensions, more then our 3 plus time, in order to exist as man, Jesus had to convert to our 3+t, and as such was bound by such limitations. This also is how I understand the symbolism in Revelation. The angel of Christ (IMHO) created a symbolic representation of St. John that a 3+t dimensional person can understand, but really applies to a 3+ dimensional reality.

[/QUOTE]

I don’t know that counting the dimensions of God makes more sense than arguing the colour of his beard. God is supernatural and not bound by our universe. As for Jesus, I have no idea how that happened. All I know is that Jesus (the flesh and blood dude) carried out the Will of God. More than that would be speculation (not that there is anything wrong with that)

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

Interesting, I have always though of a ‘god’ who can snap their fingers and create a universe a pretty basic concept, but perhaps not, maybe some moderation was needed, that even a ‘god’ must jump through some hoops to do anything.

[/QUOTE]

I am not sure how you got here from what I said but I do not believe God must jump through hoops. Doesn’t do much finger snapping either. I believe our entire universe to be a single creation event, perfect from its very conception with no further need from divine intervention.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

Not that I know of, the last book, Revelation is exactly about a binary decision for those alive, to accept the mark of God or to accept the mark of the beast. Fence sitters seem to be totally SOL. People who don’t live through this time seem to have their binary decision made via their lives, God just interprets it - in the book of life or not = life with God or not. Now if you want to go into the issue of the RC teaching of purgatory I suggest you prove it scripturally first.

My own view is that the RC Church has failed by imposing themselves between the personal relationship one can have with God.

[/QUOTE]

Purgatory is utter bollockery and I hope that the recent dismissal of limbo is a step on the direction of finally dismissing purgatory.

That life is your decision for Salvation or Damnation makes sense under my pet theory of creation but would be kind of unfair if there is nothing before a morally handicapped mortal life and we are judged by our deeds. Mercifully, it is not our deeds who save us but God’s mercy and all we need to do is accept it.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

You have posted that such a state is one which one is trying to flee from that which one can not flee (and you invoked mama’s cookie jar). Which is a valid interpretation of Hell. but who is to say **you ** will be alone there. There certainally seem to be other candidates.

[/QUOTE]

I hope that was a generic “you” and not referring to me. :eek:

Yes, there might be other who chose not to be saved but Damnation is a personal experience. The Damned won’t be hanging out in a pool of sulfur comparing their miseries. Even that would be a consolation. Damnation is best served alone.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

I can understand the concept that God = Good, God created man, man capable of good or evil. By why do you limit evil to man? Why can’t we have God = Good, God created angels, angels capable of good or evil?

[/QUOTE]

No reason not to have them but how are they different from us? If in the end, the only decision is Salvation vs Damnation, aren’t they just as moral as we are?. If Salvation is an embrace of the totality of God’s love, how can their Salvation be different from us?, If they are just moral beings with a different life experience, they might as well just be ET’s. Sure, no objection to them but they are essentially human (not Homo sapiens but human in the sense that they are moral beings created by God)

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

My view is that man has already fallen, we by ourselves already deserve to be eternally separation from God, salvation through Jesus is a bonus that we don’t deserve.

[/QUOTE]

Saying that we are fallen, as a group, makes little sense to me, Salvation being a personal choice. But yes, Salvation is a bonus. Not something we earn or deserve, just something we get as a present.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

Where did you get the ‘only’ part from, is there any scriptural basis?

[/QUOTE]

I don’t know about Scriptural. IIRC this is a very Paulist thought. It follows from the notion that when we love we are just channeling God’s love but when we do evil, it is born from us as God doesn’t do evil.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

My understanding is that Jesus’s casting out demons was sort of new, not something that was ‘in vogue’ at his time, I would like to know more if it was.

[/QUOTE]

No idea, really. Worth a look. Still, demons themselves were not new nor were angels or the rest of the cosmology.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

Satan goes by many names. He seems to have some ‘right’ to the interest of man as I quoted above. If we accept that Satan = Lucifer = fallen angel the answer would be God and would explain Satan’s power. And by your own reasoning God can create a being that can chose evil. If we take God as truly -snap-thy-fingers-and-it-happens, tri-omni-x then Satan is harder to believe, but scripture does not support such a God.

[/QUOTE]

I have no fundamental objection to a fallen angel (once I go past accepting angels in the first place). The notion of a moral creature with superhuman powers doesn’t break my cosmology. I just find it an unnecessary frill.

And I believe you are misunderstanding the idea of an omnimax God. An omnimax God is unchangeable. No need for finger snapping.

And yes, there are serious discrepancies between an omnimax God and the OT God. Not so much with the God that Jesus presents, though.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

What about angels, who man was made lower then, and animals which man was made higher then, do you believe in these 2?
[/QUOTE]

Again, no fundamental objection to moral creatures with superhuman powers. As for animals, I believe in them. Specially the mosquito who just bit my ankle. In the grand scheme of creation, though, they are not different from plants or rocks.

[Dob]

I dont know, for me it’s never been about God permits… it’s what we premit ourselves to do.

Really, we have everything we could ever need on this Earth. Plenty to share, abundent natural resources, renewable resources. Everyone on this planet could go to bed with a full stomach, have full healthcare, be safe. If only we wanted to do it. Everything we need is here, right now.

What couldn’t we accomplish if we stopped worrying about “I” and started worrying about “WE”? We have this great gift, and we ask for more, always more. Do this for me, why dont you do this, how can you allow, why do you allow… if I was God I would be tempted to take my phone off the hook.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=Sapo]
Purgatory is utter bollockery and I hope that the recent dismissal of limbo is a step on the direction of finally dismissing purgatory.
[/QUOTE]
I’b be curious to know what you think the concept of purgatory is? (I am not insisting that anyone accept that RC teaching, but I do find that many people who reject it do not even understand it.)

And the “dismissal” of Limbo is not recent. It was never church teaching, just theological speculation, and while Pope Benedict recently called for a discussion in the hopes of putting to rest the speculation, it has been outside mainstream Catholic speculation for a long time.